Another letter from a Christian

Hi forum folks. After having read Mr. Harris’ book, I wrote up a reply without thinking that he would probably never read it. Your eyes and feedback are just as valuable as Mr. Harris’, so I submit it here without changes. Peace.

Dear Mr. Harris,

My name is Julia and I’m a recent college graduate living in British Columbia. This summer I read your book Letter to a Christian Nation. No doubt receiving replies to it is now, for you, old news. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to write.

I made many long drafts of this letter that began by enumerating all the points on which I agree with you. The idea was that if you were made to realize that there are Christians who believe, as you do, that (for instance) Christian politicians ought not to try to legislate Christian values – by, for example, resisting the promulgation of an HPV vaccination on the grounds that HPV deters premarital sex, or by fighting tooth and nail the institution of gay marriage – you might be caused to acknowledge (or at least consider) the existence of Christians worthy of your intellectual respect.

Because a respectable, wholesome, holistic intellectual credibility is the one characteristic that you believe it impossible to attribute to anyone who calls him or herself a Christian. Your Letter is scathing. Contemplating theological questions is “a hilarious, terrifying, unconscionable waste of time,” period. (66) You treat all religious beliefs as they were simply obviously false. Muslim beliefs are foolish to you, and you bank on Christians having the same intuition, hoping in the end to show them that they can be no more assured of their own religious beliefs than Muslims can be of theirs. (“...every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian…[But] isn’t it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves?” (6-7))

No, it is not obvious. It is not at all obvious, and this line of argument is all but begging fundamentalist Christians to forsake critical thinking and any effort to reasonable judgement. I, for one, am convinced that Muslims are mistaken, but I don’t leap to the conclusion that therefore they’re all loonies. I suspect that many of them believe certain details about the life and identity of Muhammad and the nature of the Koran on the basis of what you and I would both consider to be good reasons in ordinary circumstances: the testimony of trusted family and friends, and historical accounts of the life of Muhammad, for example. This does not change the fact that they hold false beliefs, but it’s worse than a waste of paper – because it encourages closed-minded irrationality – to simply treat Islam as a joke.

You paint a picture of Christians as morally impoverished, prioritizing a political agenda that causes more suffering than it does good. Yes, there are Christians who fit your description. But surely you must realize that yet others have a totally different interpretation of what it means to be a follower of Christ? An interpretation that is notably lacking the American-fundamentalist urgency of integrating church and state, but nevertheless an interpretation that agrees with that of the authors of the gospels: that Jesus is God, was sent by God to reconcile God to men, performed miracles, laid down his life, and took it up again three days after he was crucified.

There are millions such as these who will feel your Letter is not addressed to them; that you talk past them; that your arguments fail to penetrate the heart of Christianity. These Christians are prepared to agree with much of what you say. They are not your enemies. And yet you alienate them by presuming them idiots.

I am ready to agree with you that extreme cruelty and devastating harm has been carried out by Christians in the name of Christ. Christianity’s history has some dark and nasty chapters, and it would be heedless for contemporary Christians to forget these entirely. But it is just as short-sighted to judge Christ’s teachings based on someone else’s interpretation of them – which is what we are doing if dismiss Christianity because of the evil that purports itself to be committed in its name. As you yourself point out, “even if atheism led straight to moral chaos, this would not suggest that the doctrine of Christianity is true.” (46)

I am ready to agree with you that many of the commandments found in the Old Testament do not agree with our moral intuitions. Reason and Conscience are the best tools we have with respect to the pursuit of morality, and we should guard them against a blind adherence to dogma. That said, it is foolishness to reject the Bible in its entirety merely because it contains accounts of deeds that we find morally questionable. As you know, the Bible is a complex book containing many genres, and written over a span of thousands of years by many authors from regions and cultures dissimilar from our own. Different parts have been written for different purposes. Just like any other historical document, the Bible is a text the reading of which requires discernment, interpretation, and relevant historical and cultural contextual knowledge to fully understand the import and intent, and thus its relevance for us today. This does not mean that it can’t contain either contain historical truths or actual revelation from God.

But in addition to these things, I also believe Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection to be vital to the ultimate flourishing of our souls. Who Jesus is matters. Whether we believe Jesus is who he said he was matters. Not only because our beliefs about this influence what metaphysical/spiritual beliefs we end up holding, but because they also matter to the condition of our souls. I know you understand this. Perhaps for us Christians to believe such things doesn’t bother you as long as we keep our noses out of politics… but I rather think not. There exist millions of non-fundamental, non-liberal Christians who love Jesus and strive to live their lives for him. We find the gospels compelling, convincing, believable. Please start there.
Sincerely Yours,

Read The End of Faith, obviously Letter to a Christian Nation was intended for an audience that does not include you. That many of the points raised do not apply to you, or that you disagree with, is merely a function of him speaking to an entirely different audience.

I would have quite a few issues with a book directed at hard-corps atheists, but that type of book does not apply to me. There are many different types of christians, you sound like the moderate type. Read his first book, I would like to know how that one struck you.

A couple things I would add to that. First and foremost, he has, on numerous occasions, publicly admitted that LTaCN is not precisely intended to talk devout/fundamentalist christians out of their belief, but to arm fellow secularists and atheists with reasoned argumentation with which to apply “conversational pressure” to beliefs of that sort. While many have apparently emailed him professing their conversion after turning the last page of that short book, most send him responses similar to yours.

Second, on TEoF; this book is more about faith, as the title suggests. The moderate is addressed more or less directly in the rhetoric regarding all forms of belief and dogma. He has chapters dedicated to just belief as it relates to the brain, and what he calls “profoundly transformative experiences” with which both fundamentalist and moderate religious believers seem to justify their untestable propositions. Much of what he wrote in TEoF does not directly address religion (long discussions about torture, among other things), but slips into the foundations upon which believers falsely, in his opinion, authenticate all forms of religiosity. He is presupposing that you are by and large more reasonable than most religious people, in that you do not particularly relish having your core beliefs be in contradiction with each other, or reality in general, and are open to argumentation and/or evidence which would alter how you view faith.

Third, in both books, he advocates a form of criticism in which he encourages (for lack of a better term) people to think more critically about the things they believe in. I have come away, after reading both numerous times, with the thesis that he is not challenging specific interpretations of christianity, or specific types of belief, but the very act of basing any moral or ethical, not to mention political and behavioral, decision on the spurious (perhaps tentative is a more gracious way to put it) idea that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent deity is running the show behind the scenes. This diversion of responsibility, and the resulting problems, is, in my humble opinion, the most central idea he is arguing against.

I think one phrase, from the first part of your letter, will help enunciate my point a little better:

The idea was that if you were made to realize that there are Christians who believe, as you do, that (for instance) Christian politicians ought not to try to legislate Christian values – by, for example, resisting the promulgation of an HPV vaccination on the grounds that HPV deters premarital sex, or by fighting tooth and nail the institution of gay marriage – you might be caused to acknowledge (or at least consider) the existence of Christians worthy of your intellectual respect.

Had religion not been doing this very thing, and more, in the very country he lives, there is a very real chance he would be a non-de-script neuroscientist working quietly in california, and Michael Shermer would have been the fourth horseman. Indeed, the very concept of the “new atheist movement” would have either died immediately, or never been born. The fact that religion does justify the irrational actions regarding the above topics is precisely what prompted, and driven, these books (that and 9/11). I think asking for an affirmation of respect, intellectual or otherwise, is essentially a non-sequitor as far as these books are concerned.

For the record, I have absolutely no issue with christians who are merely interested in experiencing the comfort and spirituality that some derive from religion, I just wish more would approach religion in that manner.

If you have the time, and have not yet partaken, I would suggest you watch his debate with Rabbi David Wolpe. It can be found here, and is quite enjoyable, regardless of your stance on the subject. The rabbi is very well spoken, and seems to be typifying a religious persona very much like yours.

OK I’ll start there. I am one that does not understand this. My gut feeling is that you’ve been told over and over that it matters, and that it is believable, compelling, etc… You’ve been immersed in the theology since birth and it has become a bit of a crutch.

There is a problem with believing and adhering to what your preacher states with conviction. Biblical scholars (as opposed to your preacher) have known and shown pretty conclusively that Jesus believed and taught that the world was going to end IN HIS LIFETIME. Jesus was the first to predict then end of the world (very soon) followed by others (Paul, next week or month- latest) followed by all the others thru 2000 years. Its touched on in the LTCN book, but this fact is very supported in scholarship for 200 years now. My guess is what you find compelling in the gospels are cherrypicked verses handed down thru decades of verbal retelling. Reliable? Hmmm… Jesus’ core message, however, was quite a different kettle of fish.

My point is, from an encompassing, critical perspective (as opposed to devotional) the NT is is NOT convincing or believable. You choose to believe what is - to scholars and unbiased observers - false.

Is it right or proper throw ones life energy towards what is false when the truth sits before you? I dunno. Its not what I can do. I have to know not believe. Belief can be anything you want, can’t it? Why would you not want hard facts? Because those squishy stories comfort you with a vision of the afterlife? Thats fine if we lived in a Brothers Grimm world of magic and superstition. But we all EXIST in a rational, science-based technology culture. Xtains choose to LIVE in a parallel fantasy world. Allowing oneself to live in a fantasy world is not advisable - where do you draw the line? When will you look at a hard fact and decide to ignore it? How will you tell the difference between fact and fancy if your gospel inspires the latter? What will be the outcome of that ignorance? For yourself? For those close to you? For civilization?

Is it right or proper throw ones life energy towards what is false when the truth sits before you? I dunno. Its not what I can do. I have to know not believe. Belief can be anything you want, can’t it? Why would you not want hard facts? Because those squishy stories comfort you with a vision of the afterlife? Thats fine if we lived in a Brothers Grimm world of magic and superstition. But we all EXIST in a rational, science-based technology culture. Xtains choose to LIVE in a parallel fantasy world. Allowing oneself to live in a fantasy world is not advisable - where do you draw the line? When will you look at a hard fact and decide to ignore it? How will you tell the difference between fact and fancy if your gospel inspires the latter? What will be the outcome of that ignorance? For yourself? For those close to you? For civilization?

Ha! I couldn’t help but think of all the Fox News viewers. On a more serious note, I would like to point out that while many religious people are in fact well-educated, they remain woefully ignorant. I think the world is suffering from an epidemic of ignorance and it’s becoming more and more of a problem in this country, and it’s something I am having more and more of a difficult time reconciling. I suppose ignorance is bliss and that is why so many fight to remain that way. You can teach the uneducated, inform the uninformed, but what to do with the ignorant- those who ignore the facts? Why do we even give them a platform of legitimacy?

anygirl -”-On a more serious note, I would like to point out that while many religious people are in fact well-educated, they remain woefully ignorant.-”

Sadly and ironically the word ‘ignorant’ means ‘un-educated’, so you’re claiming that educated people are woefully un-educated. You’re literally ignorant of the definition of the word ignorant. Little excuse in the era of the instant internet dictionary.
I also think you didn’t really make any kind of specific point. Just a very simplistic blanket of black and white world thinking that doesn’t help anything. Maybe try to get more specific next time.

Reerr, you used the term ‘hard-corps atheists’. One…it’s hard ‘core’, or hard-core, or hardcore. Corps is like a military group such as the Marine Corps.
I don’t do this to nit-pick, but because I also want to point out that there’s no such thing as a hardcore atheist no matter what the spelling.

An atheist just means you don’t have any religion. That’s it. ‘A’ meaning ‘not’, and ‘theist’ meaning ‘a person who’s religious’.
You can’t ‘not have a religion’ in a ‘hardcore’ way.

You’re probably mixing up the idea of someone being very outspoken of the fact that they’re an atheist—which would be a ‘proud’ or ‘loudmouth’ atheist or something in-between. Or that someone’s an ‘anti-theist’ -a phrase Hitchens uses all the time to make it clear that he doesn’t just ‘not have a religion’... he’s actively against religion (as am I for the record).
I just hate to see atheists get this stuff wrong as it helps prop up false beliefs and misunderstandings in already wacky theists’ heads.

...which relates to the point of Letter to a Christian Nation. Harris is saying that good, nice, moderate Christians are propping up the radical crazies by helping support the core (not corps) insane, harmful foundations of their beliefs -to bring it back to the point of the thread.

I don’t know why ‘Reerr’ would say that ‘Letter to a…’ is not speaking to moderates? It totally and specifically is. He had it exactly backwards for some reason.

anygirl -”-On a more serious note, I would like to point out that while many religious people are in fact well-educated, they remain woefully ignorant.-”

Sadly and ironically the word ‘ignorant’ means ‘un-educated’, so you’re claiming that educated people are woefully un-educated. You’re literally ignorant of the definition of the word ignorant. Little excuse in the era of the instant internet dictionary.
I also think you didn’t really make any kind of specific point. Just a very simplistic blanket of black and white world thinking that doesn’t help anything. Maybe try to get more specific next time.

My point was that one can be given facts- or educated- but that does not mean they are not ignorant. Even given facts, many choose to ignore them, thus, making them ignorant. I know how the dictionary defines the word “ignorant”, but you obviously missed my point. If you cannot comprehend things in anything other than the most literal sense, then perhaps you should not be so quick to “correct” others who may have the capacity to understand things with a metaphoric, casual, artistic, and/or multidimensional perspective.

Furthermore, if you were unable to find a point in my post, perhaps it would better serve you to ask for clarification rather than state that my post had no point. There was a point and I’m sorry you missed it. How presumptuous of you to believe you have any idea of how I think about the world based on my one post! Quite arrogant of you, I must say. As I said, perhaps you should ask for specifics, if you need specifics. As far as I know, there is no assignment or requirement when posting a response to another comment or a post, so your “corrections” are rather meaningless. This is not a course, posts are not graded, and you are not a professor.

anygirl -”-On a more serious note, I would like to point out that while many religious people are in fact well-educated, they remain woefully ignorant.-”

Sadly and ironically the word ‘ignorant’ means ‘un-educated’, so you’re claiming that educated people are woefully un-educated. You’re literally ignorant of the definition of the word ignorant. Little excuse in the era of the instant internet dictionary.

Ignorant means lacking knowledge, whether via formal education or otherwise, and it’s as valid regarding a specified paradigm as it is in a more general or universal sense. Synonyms only work within the same forms of the synonymous terms (i.e. “dumb” is only synonymous with “mute” if you’re talking about someone who can’t speak; “That was a mute thing to do.” doesn’t work).

You’re equivocating with the term “education” and resting on the forms of the words that suit your personal purpose at the moment, regardless of violating context.

In any case well educated people can most definitely remain ignorant of many things, enough even to be ignorant in a general sense, and sometimes even ignorant regarding important elements of the very subject upon which they’ve been educated.

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel

I really think anygirl is not using the words ignorant or education correctly. And this is not based on my personally choice of what they mean twisted for my own purposes.
Ignorant and education do not have multiple and wildly different lists of meanings like your example of ‘Dumb’ meaning mute or stupid does.

Re-read how she uses ‘ignorant’ even in her reply to my complaint. It’s not right, but the way you use it is -even though you are defending her misuse against me.

Either you or ‘anygirl’ could have explained (though I already know it) that “people can be educated in certain ways yet ignorant in others”.

I ‘think’ that was basically what ‘anygirl’ meant in the first place-which SkepticX seemed to be defending. But I just found it disappointing that her post was worded as a total blanket statement. It seemed comical and largely pointless.

Also ‘anygirl’ you suggested I ask you to be more specific even though I did exactly that before you replied to me.

I’m not judging who you are and how you think and feel and whatever else based off of your one post. I’m just telling you how that one post came across. Just like you called me arrogant even though you also don’t know me aside from a single post. I can make mistakes just like anyone else (though we’re not all the same of course), but the nature of a mistake is that we didn’t notice the error to have made it, and it usually takes someone else to point it out.

When you replied with “My point was that one can be given facts- or educated- but that does not mean they are not ignorant.” was really just repeating what you already wrote. SkepticX actually made a clear explanation for you. One I didn’t actually need though and I would have preferred you making it.

Like I said before… it’s really not saying anything to say ‘some people know a lot but in other ways don’t know much of anything’. Everyone already knows that.
It struck me as vapid and black n’ white sort of thinking that tends to flourish in the minds of the faithful more-so than in the far more introspective rationalist crowd.

Maybe that’s the only time you’ve ever done such a thing or maybe you do that sort of thing all the time? I don’t know. You may be be far smarter and more intelligent in nearly every way than myself, but I thought your post was weak and pointless, and I’m betting without knowing you at all that you can easily improve the quality of points you make.
We all can -unless brainwashed to refuse to try.

I think we’re on the same side of the issues this forum typically deals with. My goal is not to piss you off, but to prod.

For a specific example of what I ‘think’ you were broadly talking about is in Harris’s latest book where he talks about how an otherwise intelligent and rational sounding woman told him that if stabbing the eyes out of every third person in a tribe was part of the tribe’s religion…then she couldn’t say that was morally wrong.
To which he was utterly shocked and heavily disappointed -as was I to read it.

This is a very interesting subject on how a very well educated person can still be ignorant. I do not believe I have heard this discussed in bible study yet and will be checking with the former instructor. I think this will be out next topic for discussion in bible study.

- Do you believe that the bible is the verbatim word of God, revelated through his prophets?

Would you be so kind to answer please.

Thanks in advance

“Consider yourself. I want you to imagine a scene from your childhood. Pick something evocative… Something you can remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you WEREN’T there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Every bit of you has been replaced many times over… Steve Grand

Sam Harris made his point that neither Christianity, nor any other religion is right, simply because there is absolutely no evidence of any divinity to believe in nor to worship in this Universe. Religion is a sorrowful waste of time and human energy. This is what I learned from Sam Harris. And I think he is right.

I did study Medicine and when I became a medical doctor, I was a “natural” atheist. Later in life, I tried to approach theology, and I became a believer. I read and studied the Bible for several years. The more I studied the “word of ‘god,” the more dissatisfied I became with the teachings of Jesus. For instance, I disliked his arrogance toward the old Jewish religious establishment. I disliked the way he addressed the high priests as “vipers.” I disliked his lack of compassion for a young man who asked him to wait for a little more for him to burry his father. I think that was my turning point, just because I respected and loved my family so much.
I also disliked his teachings about your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He did not teach about ANY human rights.
Jesus was a psychological terrorist: remember when he asked his disciples to bring forth all those who don’t want him to rule over them and butcher them right there, in front of him? Nice, ha?
Jesus was not concerned with social peace on earth, but only with him being “adored,” “worshiped,” “considered divine” as great as ‘god himself. [ “I did not come to bring peace on earth, but to raise son against father and father against son…” etc…..etc…..]
So, in the end, I became again a “natural” atheist. I throw my Bible in one of my drawer.

I don’t believe that this Jesus exists today. [etc…..etc…..] He has died long time before. Nothig of his teaching work today. He was a faillure.
If he existed, I don’t want to have any part with him. I reject him as my guru.I prefer to be a free thinkerl. Love it. Being proud to be a man of the 3rd millennium.
Look very close at your “divinity”. You like what you see? Good for you. But If you don’t like, say goodbye and look for anotrher boss. That IS reasonable.

Hi forum folks. After having read Mr. Harris’ book, I wrote up a reply without thinking that he would probably never read it. Your eyes and feedback are just as valuable as Mr. Harris’, so I submit it here without changes. Peace.

Dear Mr. Harris,

My name is Julia and I’m a recent college graduate living in British Columbia. This summer I read your book Letter to a Christian Nation. No doubt receiving replies to it is now, for you, old news. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to write. ...

But in addition to these things, I also believe Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection to be vital to the ultimate flourishing of our souls. Who Jesus is matters. Whether we believe Jesus is who he said he was matters. Not only because our beliefs about this influence what metaphysical/spiritual beliefs we end up holding, but because they also matter to the condition of our souls. I know you understand this. Perhaps for us Christians to believe such things doesn’t bother you as long as we keep our noses out of politics… but I rather think not. There exist millions of non-fundamental, non-liberal Christians who love Jesus and strive to live their lives for him. We find the gospels compelling, convincing, believable. Please start there.
Sincerely Yours,

This is very old, but I found not completely addressed by any response. Thus, Julia who Jesus is/was is totally irrelevant. Billions have lived and died without any influence of Jesus on their so called “souls.” When you die, you will go back to being what you were before you lived—nothing. That’s it. Your life here, just like everyone else’s, is short. Do something with it and don’t waste it trying to live for Jesus.